Read the full judgment text of CACV 338/2018 & CACV 431/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 27 March 2019 before Hon Lam VP, Cheung JA, Yuen JA.
Civil procedure — Arbitration — Appeal on question of law against arbitral award — Leave to appeal under Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) Schedule 2 s.6 — Tests for granting leave: 'obviously wrong' vs 'serious doubt' — 'One-off' contract vs standard terms — Contractual construction — Schedule of Rates dispute — Door window hinge replacement valuation — Arbitrator’s detailed reasoning upheld — Leave to appeal properly refused — Appeal against leave decision incompetent without leave — Satellite litigation discouraged. The plaintiffs challenged an arbitrator’s award favoring the defendant housing authority in valuing maintenance works replacing aluminium window hinges. Dispute centered on whether valuation should apply only certain rates (Rates 1 to 3) or all five contested rates (Rates 1 to 5) under the contract Schedule of Rates (SOR). The arbitrator found replacement work did not include ancillary repairs and limited payable rates to 1 to 3. The Court reviewed the test for granting leave to appeal under Cap. 609 Schedule 2 s.6, clarifying that for 'one-off' contracts like here, the 'obviously wrong' test applies and found no error in arbitrator’s award or Judge’s refusal of leave on that basis. A subsequent appeal by defendant against Judge’s grant of leave was held incompetent as no leave to appeal was obtained, and no statutory basis for such appeal existed. The Court emphasized deference to experienced arbitrators in contractual construction, the high threshold for leave, and discouraged satellite appeals that add costs without utility. Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed with costs ordered accordingly.
Legal issues: Appropriate test for granting leave to appeal under Section 6(4)(c) of Schedule 2 Arbitration Ordinance · Whether the Judge conflated the tests for leave to appeal · Application of principles of contractual construction on the arbitration award · Whether the monetary values of the rates were improperly ignored in the award · Competency of appeal against the judge’s leave decision under section 6(5) Arbitration Ordinance
Outcome: Both appeals dismissed; CACV 431/2018 dismissed for want of jurisdiction; CACV 338/2018 dismissed on merits
Cites 5 cases